JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jan 29, 2014 23:19:04 GMT
One of my friends here did his MA dissertation on Thankful Villages last year, not only looking at the villages that didn't lose anyone in WWI but also so-called Doubly Thankful Villages who lost no one in both world wars. The work on them was originally done by Arthur Mee, although his work has been scrutinised since
My friend studied them because he wanted to know if they remember the war in a different way to other villages given that have no one to remember. I haven't spoken to him much about it since we submitted our dissertations but I believe what he found is that there wasn't a great deal of difference - one example is that the people of the village of Upper Slaughter in the Cotswolds, a Doubly Thankful Village (although there is a certain amount of doubt over this due to a technicality), still participate in remembrance services with the people of the neighbouring village of Lower Slaughter. Most of the people in these villages just accept it as dumb luck and still remember those who lost their lives in the wars wherever they came from
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jan 29, 2014 23:37:13 GMT
Snow just quotes the statistic. He doesn't try to explain why that might have been the case - he just quotes it and leaves it there. To try to draw any major conclusions from one statistic without critically engaging with the context of it adds (and debunks) nothing He probably leaves it there because the fact alone demonstrates what he wants it to demonstrate. You would need to "critically engage with the context" to show that it did not. My point is that you can't or won't "critically engage with the context". If I post up a League 2 table and say it shows we are in trouble, I don't need to "critically engage with the context" to back that up. If I wanted to demonstrate that the league table did not show that we were in trouble, then I really would have to "critically engage with the context". Also I'd like to see where this idea that "the upper class got off lightly" came from to begin with. He hasn't explained that either. The cliche of the officer class having a cushy life whilst sending working class soldiers to do their dirty work for them is pretty widespread. Are you genuinely claiming you have never heard anything like this? Blackadder and Oh What a Lovely War have been mentioned a lot recently. Two minutes with Chelston's vinyl collection would give you: "Forward he cried from the rear and the front rank died" "Politicians hide themselves away. They only started the war. Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor, yeah" |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jan 30, 2014 11:23:02 GMT
Snow just quotes the statistic. He doesn't try to explain why that might have been the case - he just quotes it and leaves it there. To try to draw any major conclusions from one statistic without critically engaging with the context of it adds (and debunks) nothing He probably leaves it there because the fact alone demonstrates what he wants it to demonstrate. You would need to "critically engage with the context" to show that it did not. My point is that you can't or won't "critically engage with the context". If I post up a League 2 table and say it shows we are in trouble, I don't need to "critically engage with the context" to back that up. If I wanted to demonstrate that the league table did not show that we were in trouble, then I really would have to "critically engage with the context". Of course you have to. When we look at a football league table, it means something to us because we have background information about what it all represents. Otherwise it's just a set of meaningless figures - if an alien turned up and read the table, you would have to explain what it meant. If it was a clever alien, it would point out that if this table was mid-season, the relative strengths of the fixture list can make the table deceptively inaccurate in representing which teams are good and which aren't, and that there are other ways of explaining why a team is or isn't in trouble You have to attach meaning and context to statistics for them to be regarded as useful evidence, and then use that to explain why whatever it represents was the case. Snow doesn't really try to explain why lots of upper class people died, apart from the junior officer theory. All he says is that lots of them did. That's not enough The cliche of the officer class having a cushy life whilst sending working class soldiers to do their dirty work for them is pretty widespread. Are you genuinely claiming you have never heard anything like this? No, I'm saying I'd like to know what the source of it was. Because I doubt it's totally without basis. An important part of history-writing from A Level onwards is historiography - the history of the history, i.e. looking at what the current dominant ideas in that field are and where they came from In any case, Blackadder doesn't conform to this, because the junior officer is a middle class guy, who is senior to the upper class guy (who dies, along with all of his friends from public school) |
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Jan 30, 2014 14:16:34 GMT
You have to attach meaning and context to statistics for them to be regarded as useful evidence, and then use that to explain why whatever it represents was the case. Snow doesn't really try to explain why lots of upper class people died, apart from the junior officer theory. All he says is that lots of them did. That's not enough I bet it was enough for their Mums, Dads, Wives and/or girlfriends without attaching meaning and context to the statistic of a dead body! |
|
JamesB
TFF member
Posts: 1,526
|
Post by JamesB on Jan 30, 2014 20:46:30 GMT
But that's exactly what I'm saying (unless you were agreeing) - unless you attach context and meaning to those statistics, they are just cold, hard numbers. Unless you tell the story behind it, you're reducing the life of someone who died in the war to an extra 1 on the end of a figure
I'm not really that interested in whether the soldiers that died were from the upper, middle or working class. Each death in World War I was a senseless, unnecessary tragedy. That's why I don't believe in reducing the war to a set of numbers, or having a competition to see which social class lost the most people
That's why the Snow article (and, by extension, the work of the likes of Niall Ferguson) annoyed me - it's a totally callous, unnecessary argument, to the point where it could only come from someone with a clear agenda
|
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jan 30, 2014 23:29:21 GMT
When we look at a football league table, it means something to us because we have background information about what it all represents. Otherwise it's just a set of meaningless figures - if an alien turned up and read the table, you would have to explain what it meant. If it was a clever alien, it would point out that if this table was mid-season, the relative strengths of the fixture list can make the table deceptively inaccurate in representing which teams are good and which aren't, and that there are other ways of explaining why a team is or isn't in trouble I doubt if many people in this country do not grasp the very basic concept of a football league table - that better teams tend to be nearer the top and poorer teams tend to be nearer the bottom. That does not mean that the team at the top is beyond all doubt the best team and 100% certain to end the season on top and nobody is saying it does. The very broad brush argument that a team at the bottom is not doing very well does not really require a 500 page thesis to prove. Similarly a 20% death rate does support a "didn't get off lightly" assertion without needing to go much further. James you often see the world through polar filters. Good v bad, black v white, right v wrong, left v right. If someone isn't toeing the party line that WW1 was very easily avoidable and that the campaign was run by utter idiots, they must be glorifying war. Interestingly, WW2 tends to escape the flak for fear of sounding pro-Hitler. The politicians of 1914 are commonly viewed as idiots for not taking the easy option of standing back whilst Germany invaded Belgium. The politicians of 1936-39 are commonly viewed as idiots for taking the easy option of "appeasement". The truth in both cases is more complex than that. It annoys me when people can perceive no shades of grey. These are the people that I feel most tempted to argue with, but they are also the least productive people to debate with. People of a simplistic fixed position will not let complexity into the debate - for fear of shaking their "faith". Best to leave it. Don't wrestle with pigs. You only get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Where's that "bashing head against a brick wall" smiley gone? |
|
|
|
Post by Ditmar van Nostrilboy on Jan 31, 2014 8:57:45 GMT
If it was a clever alien, it would point out that if this table was mid-season, the relative strengths of the fixture list can make the table deceptively inaccurate in representing which teams are good and which aren't, and that there are other ways of explaining why a team is or isn't in trouble Although if it was that bright, it may well point out that by mid season, most teams will (more or less) have played all the other teams, and, as such, is a good barometer of performance so far. |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Jan 31, 2014 9:23:29 GMT
Don't believe these liberals telling you history can be viewed without ideological lenses on, James - it can't, and anyone who claims it can is trying to delude themselves and others.
|
|
|
|
Post by stefano on Jan 31, 2014 10:39:01 GMT
Don't believe these liberals telling you history can be viewed without ideological lenses on, James - it can't, and anyone who claims it can is trying to delude themselves and others. I shouldn't take any notice of Lambeth James. Never mind those monstrous liberals, if you don't agree with Lambeth then you are just plain WRONG!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 22:57:49 GMT
Green Army! I think we've broadened things out from exclusively looking at things from an ANZAC perspective, and it's probably best not to dwell on what the lads who gave their lives in World War One would think if they knew England couldn't beat any of the Johnny Foreigners at the World Cup, or that Europe now has us firmly by the Junkers. Stanley Reed, played three games for Plymouth Argyle in 1913 - 14. A well known Devon cricketer he joined the 11th Devonshire Regiment in December 1915, becoming a lance corporal.
He was the first Argyle player killed while at a training battle camp in Dorset. On April 21, 1916, a grenade he was about the throw exploded. He died instantly.
He was buried at Torquay Cemetery.
The Plymouth Herald remembers some Argyle players who took part in the Great War. LINK - WW1 Green Army |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2014 8:10:32 GMT
Green Army! I think we've broadened things out from exclusively looking at things from an ANZAC perspective, and it's probably best not to dwell on what the lads who gave their lives in World War One would think if they knew England couldn't beat any of the Johnny Foreigners at the World Cup, or that Europe now has us firmly by the Junkers. You may well be right. There's always something to moan about. I heard somebody on the Bradfield bus on Sunday sounding off about the Tour de France by saying he's planning to stay in bed all day when the race passes through. Next he'll be complaining that Wednesday's new owner is more interested in Lens. But to go back to those who died in WW1. I reckon they would have been appalled by Europe doing it all over again between 1939 and 1945. But they would be heartened that several successive generations haven't had to endure what they suffered. I guess most would have loved the idea of international football competitions; many - who knows? - may also have favoured the concept of European Union. An interesting thread for AJ to resurrect. Right from the "off" I failed to see evidence that the ANZACs were being "airbrushed" from history. There seemed to be plenty of noise but little fact. That, I guess, is because not a single soul wished to diminish the military endeavours of Australians and New Zealanders. The simple wish, it appears, was to draw attention to the contribution of others who tend to be overlooked. Nothing more; nothing less. Meanwhile thanks to AJ for the article about the Argyle players who died in WW1. It's noticeable how the fatalies were spread across the various stages of the war on the Western Front. Mention too of Stanley Reed who has been discussed on other threads. |
|
Jon
Admin
Posts: 6,912
|
Post by Jon on Jul 2, 2014 22:52:10 GMT
|
|
